Buffalo/Ontario Mob Acitivity

[gohnjotti]

My question is, did prosecutors name the Kansas City LCN as a criminal enterprise in the 2010 case? Did they allege that the crimes committed were in furtherance or a part of the Kansas City LCN racketeering conspiracy? If so, then you could consider the Kansas City LCN to be a viable criminal force as of 2010, in my opinion.

No, they didn't include organized crime charges or references to the LCN in the case.

So there, the KC crime family is not active because the crimes committed by the members in 2010 were not part of the Kansas City LCN criminal enterprise. That's my point. The KC LCN was not active in 2010, despite their members being involved in crime, because there was no evidence that their bookmaking operation was an LCN enterprise, nor was there any evidence that these former members were acting under the auspices of the KC LCN.

But, the Trafficante crime family was still active in 2000, because the FBI - yes, the same FBI that labelled them essentially defunct in 1992 - found evidence that members of the Trafficante crime family were committing organized crime in furtherance of the Tampa LCN criminal enterprise/racketeering conspiracy.

Do you see what I'm saying Wiseguy? There's a distinct difference between an ongoing LCN criminal conspiracy and two hangaround LCN guys committing crimes. The Tampa case in 2000 showed evidence of a distinct LCN racketeering conspiracy, while the Kansas City 2010 case did not have such evidence.

[Wiseguy]

No, you should have it clear that they do! There's a political aspect to this. D'Elia was dealt with as a boss, not a member. His stature was recognized as such by the cities of Philly and New York. When Ralph Natale dealt with D'Elia, he dealt with him as a boss, he didn't look at him and say you're done, you're not on my level, I made 5 guys last week rounding my Family out to 30, you've made nobody in 20 years and Scranton has nobody but you.

You're approaching this from the opposite viewpoint of law enforcement where they consider active a collection of illegal activities that they can prosecute. In the 1970's considered SF inactive as most of their members were semi-retired (informants). However James Fratianno stated later on that SF still have 4 members which made up the SF organization. He said nothing about it being disbanded and that it was free to move in on. So while they may not have committed enough crimes to warrant further FBI scrutiny, they were still politically recognized as a formal LCN entity within the mafia atmosphere. Why does that matter?

We can come up with more recent examples but let's take Fratianno who went around the country misrepresenting himself as Acting Boss when he was Acting Underboss and how that counted against him. He can sit there all day and say he was actually running things while Tom Dragna worked in his clothing store or whatever he did, while from the FBI perspective Fratianno may have been more "active" in running the Family than largely inactive Tom Dragna, but in mafia politics, Dragna was acting boss and Fratianno was misrepresenting his own position.

I get what you're saying but you have to admit the law enforcement view/approach reflects the practical reality of things much better. If someone asked you how many Mafia families were still around, and you told them 20, would that really give them an accurate idea of things?

So there, the KC crime family is not active because the crimes committed by the members in 2010 were not part of the Kansas City LCN criminal enterprise. That's my point. The KC LCN was not active in 2010, despite their members being involved in crime, because there was no evidence that their bookmaking operation was an LCN enterprise, nor was there any evidence that these former members were acting under the auspices of the KC LCN.

But, the Trafficante crime family was still active in 2000, because the FBI - yes, the same FBI that labelled them essentially defunct in 1992 - found evidence that members of the Trafficante crime family were committing organized crime in furtherance of the Tampa LCN criminal enterprise/racketeering conspiracy.

Do you see what I'm saying Wiseguy? There's a distinct difference between an ongoing LCN criminal conspiracy and two hangaround LCN guys committing crimes. The Tampa case in 2000 showed evidence of a distinct LCN racketeering conspiracy, while the Kansas City 2010 case did not have such evidence.

I understand what you're saying but, reading what Scott said, it was the FDLE (FL Dept of Law Enforcement) that considered the Trafficante family active through the early 2000s. The FBI led the Raffa investigation but that doesn't necessarily mean their estimation had changed from nearly a decade before. As one FBI SAC said recently, they will still "make cases of there's one to be made" but their over overall threat assessments are what they are.

[gohnjotti]

No, you should have it clear that they do! There's a political aspect to this. D'Elia was dealt with as a boss, not a member. His stature was recognized as such by the cities of Philly and New York. When Ralph Natale dealt with D'Elia, he dealt with him as a boss, he didn't look at him and say you're done, you're not on my level, I made 5 guys last week rounding my Family out to 30, you've made nobody in 20 years and Scranton has nobody but you.

You're approaching this from the opposite viewpoint of law enforcement where they consider active a collection of illegal activities that they can prosecute. In the 1970's considered SF inactive as most of their members were semi-retired (informants). However James Fratianno stated later on that SF still have 4 members which made up the SF organization. He said nothing about it being disbanded and that it was free to move in on. So while they may not have committed enough crimes to warrant further FBI scrutiny, they were still politically recognized as a formal LCN entity within the mafia atmosphere. Why does that matter?

We can come up with more recent examples but let's take Fratianno who went around the country misrepresenting himself as Acting Boss when he was Acting Underboss and how that counted against him. He can sit there all day and say he was actually running things while Tom Dragna worked in his clothing store or whatever he did, while from the FBI perspective Fratianno may have been more "active" in running the Family than largely inactive Tom Dragna, but in mafia politics, Dragna was acting boss and Fratianno was misrepresenting his own position.

I get what you're saying but you have to admit the law enforcement view/approach reflects the practical reality of things much better. If someone asked you how many Mafia families were still around, and you told them 20, would that really give them an accurate idea of things?

So there, the KC crime family is not active because the crimes committed by the members in 2010 were not part of the Kansas City LCN criminal enterprise. That's my point. The KC LCN was not active in 2010, despite their members being involved in crime, because there was no evidence that their bookmaking operation was an LCN enterprise, nor was there any evidence that these former members were acting under the auspices of the KC LCN.

But, the Trafficante crime family was still active in 2000, because the FBI - yes, the same FBI that labelled them essentially defunct in 1992 - found evidence that members of the Trafficante crime family were committing organized crime in furtherance of the Tampa LCN criminal enterprise/racketeering conspiracy.

Do you see what I'm saying Wiseguy? There's a distinct difference between an ongoing LCN criminal conspiracy and two hangaround LCN guys committing crimes. The Tampa case in 2000 showed evidence of a distinct LCN racketeering conspiracy, while the Kansas City 2010 case did not have such evidence.

I understand what you're saying but, reading what Scott said, it was the FDLE (FL Dept of Law Enforcement) that considered the Trafficante family active through the early 2000s. The FBI led the Raffa investigation but that doesn't necessarily mean their estimation had changed from nearly a decade before. As one FBI SAC said recently, they will still "make cases of there's one to be made" but their over overall threat assessments are what they are.

I get what you're saying Wiseguy. So even if Violi's taped statements are accurate, could you still surmise that the Buffalo LCN is not "active," but is merely in the same boat as the Tampa LCN in 2000 or similar families?

[Wiseguy]

I get what you're saying Wiseguy. So even if Violi's taped statements are accurate, could you still surmise that the Buffalo LCN is not "active," but is merely in the same boat as the Tampa LCN in 2000 or similar families?

If Violi's taped statements are accurate? That's a HUUUUUUGE "if" and so rather difficult to answer. I do believe Buffalo is like Tampa back then. Or other places where there are only remnants of a family left.

[Lupara]

Yes because saying one of the big 5 had a reduced squad merged with another family and they are ramping back up is totally the same as saying we consider a family defunct and now active and we are again investigating.

You're splitting hairs. They thought the Bonannos were down and out and didn't require as much suvaillance (their words) but the family made "a comeback" (the agent interviewed used that very word). They publically admitted the resurgence of a family and their mistake in letting it happen.

Yes, but after the indictment, they didn't come to Massino's door and announce they made a mistake and were going to focus on him more. This investigation was carried on discreetly until they had enough to bring a case.

Actually it was before. The article came out in 2000. Massino wasn't indicted until 2003. Massino even gave a quote to the paper denying his involvement.


Pogo

That's because the Bonannos were on a different level than Buffalo ever was, being one of the big five. What remains in Buffalo is in no way as significant as the Bonannos under Massino. And I can't believe the feds were so stupid that they really thought the Bonannos were finished. I also believe that what is happening politically between the remaining members in Buffalo and Canada is not much of their concern as long as no large scale criminal activity is taking place on their side of the border. What are the feds going to do when Todaro is giving some direction to and receiving Canadian mobsters when there are no crimes committed on American soil? Thinking that the Bonannos were finished when they were a powerhouse under Massino was a huge embarrasment which they were forced to admit to. What remains in Buffalo is not as significant and you can't really speak of an embarrasment in that regard. The public doesn't care so why would they put out a statement that they were wrong thinking the family is no longer active? Why put themselves in a spot that they have to explain themselves and redirect funds back to their Buffalo office when nobody cares?

Speaking of which, that the Bonannos were able to slip under the radar and be able to rebuild right under the feds' eye at a time when the mob was their main priority is an argument that can actually be used in favor of Buffalo's resurgance.

[gohnjotti]

I get what you're saying Wiseguy. So even if Violi's taped statements are accurate, could you still surmise that the Buffalo LCN is not "active," but is merely in the same boat as the Tampa LCN in 2000 or similar families?

If Violi's taped statements are accurate? That's a HUUUUUUGE "if" and so rather difficult to answer. I do believe Buffalo is like Tampa back then. Or other places where there are only remnants of a family left.

I'm on the same page with you, pal. I don't agree with your definition of "viable," or your definition of "active," but I 100% see why you came to the conclusions you did, and I've got nothing left to argue about. I don't think we could disagree on what is actually going down on the streets, I think we can probably only disagree about tiny, minute definitions on words like viability and activity.

I don't think Buffalo is much different to Tampa in 2000, or LA in the 1990s. I'll speculate - sorry Wiseguy & Pogo, I know you guys aren't big on speculations - that Joe Todaro Jr. is a lot like Pete Milano, in that he is probably not directly involved in any criminal activity, but that he is simply the general facilitator of the Buffalo LCN.

[Confederate]

I get what you're saying Wiseguy. So even if Violi's taped statements are accurate, could you still surmise that the Buffalo LCN is not "active," but is merely in the same boat as the Tampa LCN in 2000 or similar families?

If Violi's taped statements are accurate? That's a HUUUUUUGE "if" and so rather difficult to answer. I do believe Buffalo is like Tampa back then. Or other places where there are only remnants of a family left.

I'm on the same page with you, pal. I don't agree with your definition of "viable," or your definition of "active," but I 100% see why you came to the conclusions you did, and I've got nothing left to argue about. I don't think we could disagree on what is actually going down on the streets, I think we can probably only disagree about tiny, minute definitions on words like viability and activity.

I don't think Buffalo is much different to Tampa in 2000, or LA in the 1990s. I'll speculate - sorry Wiseguy & Pogo, I know you guys aren't big on speculations - that Joe Todaro Jr. is a lot like Pete Milano, in that he is probably not directly involved in any criminal activity, but that he is simply the general facilitator of the Buffalo LCN.

Yes, That is quite possible. Also, what Chris Christie said was very interesting. The way the Feds gauge whether a Family is still active and and the way the New York 5 Families look at it are TWO DIFFERENT WAYS. The Feds might consider Kansas City a defunct Family but made guys from the Gambino Family would consider left over made guys in that city or in Los Angeles as some kind of extension of the nationwide LCN. So, in other words, the Mafia doesn't give a shit how the Feds classify them. It really comes down to a matter of semantics if I understood him correctly. I never looked at it from that point of view. LOL

[scagghiuni]

So we should definitely expect more from this revitalized family in the coming years, correct? And if it doesn't happen?

the problem is that most of the activity is in canada where laws against oc are a joke compared to usa or italy, so i don't think we'll see indictments against joe todaro jr. or members based in buffalo, but sure something over there

[sdeitche]

No, you should have it clear that they do! There's a political aspect to this. D'Elia was dealt with as a boss, not a member. His stature was recognized as such by the cities of Philly and New York. When Ralph Natale dealt with D'Elia, he dealt with him as a boss, he didn't look at him and say you're done, you're not on my level, I made 5 guys last week rounding my Family out to 30, you've made nobody in 20 years and Scranton has nobody but you.

You're approaching this from the opposite viewpoint of law enforcement where they consider active a collection of illegal activities that they can prosecute. In the 1970's considered SF inactive as most of their members were semi-retired (informants). However James Fratianno stated later on that SF still have 4 members which made up the SF organization. He said nothing about it being disbanded and that it was free to move in on. So while they may not have committed enough crimes to warrant further FBI scrutiny, they were still politically recognized as a formal LCN entity within the mafia atmosphere. Why does that matter?

We can come up with more recent examples but let's take Fratianno who went around the country misrepresenting himself as Acting Boss when he was Acting Underboss and how that counted against him. He can sit there all day and say he was actually running things while Tom Dragna worked in his clothing store or whatever he did, while from the FBI perspective Fratianno may have been more "active" in running the Family than largely inactive Tom Dragna, but in mafia politics, Dragna was acting boss and Fratianno was misrepresenting his own position.

I get what you're saying but you have to admit the law enforcement view/approach reflects the practical reality of things much better. If someone asked you how many Mafia families were still around, and you told them 20, would that really give them an accurate idea of things?

So there, the KC crime family is not active because the crimes committed by the members in 2010 were not part of the Kansas City LCN criminal enterprise. That's my point. The KC LCN was not active in 2010, despite their members being involved in crime, because there was no evidence that their bookmaking operation was an LCN enterprise, nor was there any evidence that these former members were acting under the auspices of the KC LCN.

But, the Trafficante crime family was still active in 2000, because the FBI - yes, the same FBI that labelled them essentially defunct in 1992 - found evidence that members of the Trafficante crime family were committing organized crime in furtherance of the Tampa LCN criminal enterprise/racketeering conspiracy.

Do you see what I'm saying Wiseguy? There's a distinct difference between an ongoing LCN criminal conspiracy and two hangaround LCN guys committing crimes. The Tampa case in 2000 showed evidence of a distinct LCN racketeering conspiracy, while the Kansas City 2010 case did not have such evidence.

I understand what you're saying but, reading what Scott said, it was the FDLE (FL Dept of Law Enforcement) that considered the Trafficante family active through the early 2000s. The FBI led the Raffa investigation but that doesn't necessarily mean their estimation had changed from nearly a decade before. As one FBI SAC said recently, they will still "make cases of there's one to be made" but their over overall threat assessments are what they are.

In all fairness the FDLE knew far more about what was going on than Tampa FBI office in regards to organized crime by the late 80s. They had the informants and made the cases. All of the major Tampa based OC invesyigations (post 88/89) were state (and even local) based.
Quirk of the FBI field office Tampa from what Ive been told by many.
I also do not recall the FBI saying Tampa was inactive in 1992. Interesting because in 1991 the FDLE released a huge assessment of the Trafficante family-was first time Raffa was placed in as a Trafficante guy that I know.

Anyhoo, Tampa is not an active family anymore. LoScalzo spends his nights at the Torch cigar lounge enjoying Cigar City's finest stogies. He turned 82 this year.

[Angelo Santino]

I get what you're saying but you have to admit the law enforcement view/approach reflects the practical reality of things much better. If someone asked you how many Mafia families were still around, and you told them 20, would that really give them an accurate idea of things?

I'll admit that it's a good lens to view the mafia through, but it's not the only lens. And despite my previous diatribe about the mafia not necessarily having to be engaged in crime to exist, it stands as a fact that not a single Mafia LCN Family has went any single decade without criminal activity. So measuring active/viable status through the scope of criminal activity is damn solid. It, in theory, should perfectly measure these groups' existence. It's similar to Rick and I's recently discovered methodology of associating people with specific families based on their regional origin, it has proved mostly accurate and has managed to answer many many questions about events pre-1930's. It still doesn't take everything into account, such as intermarriages and if Corleonese man marries a Sciaccatani woman from a Mafia family and the Corleonese is introduced to it that way, in America he'd be affiliated with the Sciaccatani which fell under Lupo even if he lives in a Corleonese neighborhood alongside Corleonese Mafia members. In this case, it would be wrong to conclude he's with Morello based on his hometown origin alone which has been 90% accurate. Or drawing back to the non-Ital Andy Knapik Merola example, his existence doesn't erase from our thesis that the majority of Gambinos were Palermitan. We need to measure things from different lenses.

Let's say in 1910 my grandfather was the only citizen to own a Buick in the state of New Mexico and wrapped himself around a tree. If we view this statistically then in 1910 100% of Buick owners in NM got into accidents. It could be taken away that if you bought a Buick and moved to NM then there's a 100% chance you'd get into an accident. Statistics can be useful but they can also be misleading and if you know what you're doing you can create results you want to create. Look no further than the Medical industry.

No one here or in law enforcement can ever say that LA and the Colombos were equal in anything: amount of members, criminal activity, whatever comparison you want to make, the Colombos are the NY Yankees and LA Little League. Milano headed a very weak organization, in its last decades they had no underboss, a captain attended a mafia sitdown using bikers as muscle. They had no long term rackets, it was members basically dabbling in crime... But that didn't stop Donnie Shacks of the Colombos from contacting Milano as soon as he made it out to LA. What occurred was Shacks, a ranking member of one of the Five Families deferring to a Boss of a much weakened nearly defunct group. What was to stop Donnie Shacks from telling Pete to fuck off and start up a new LA-based faction of the Colombos? Protocol. Shacks and Milano were never at odds, in fact they lived close by and would spend time at each other's houses.

So while the practical reality is that LA was all but finished and according to Fratianno and Kenji Gallo, Milano was a complete pussy, it doesn't alter the fact that Donnie Shacks recognized him. That's the protocol and it exists regardless of what we on the board or at the FBI thought of Milano or his Mickey Mouse Mafia.

[eboli]

Some very good points made in the last few of pages. Ultimately it narrows down to the perspective what constitutes a viable family. On one hand If you view the family from within the large network and order-like structure Cosa Nostra is known for, an argument can definitely be made a family can remain "active" or "viable" for a time, even after being labeled defunct by LE. Like helping other families establish presence, providing logistical assistance, connections, etc. I think D'Elia is a good example it can go to extremes, but I believe the boss treatment he received while being boss of nothing is more tied to his personality than to the rules. Don't get me wrong, I don't think he'll be disrespected either way, but his energy had a lot to do why people sought his advice.

On the other hand you have the more outside look at what makes a crime family "viable. If the FBI analyzes the situation and concludes in relatively short term, based on collected intelligence, a crime organization can't prosper and eventually will suffocate itself to death, I think that's a good reason to put the defunct label and get it over with, while the remains scatter or get put down in the following decade or so. Their ability to operate on their own terms has already been destroyed.

Also, it can be argued for most of the smaller families there was no incentive to rebuild after being knocked down by LE. A lot of these made guys and associates did a lot better after a family was dissolved than before, because they didn't have to kick up the chain of command on regular basis.

[Angelo Santino]

Some very good points made in the last few of pages. Ultimately it narrows down to the perspective what constitutes a viable family. On one hand If you view the family from within the large network and order-like structure Cosa Nostra is known for, an argument can definitely be made a family can remain "active" or "viable" for a time, even after being labeled defunct by LE. Like helping other families establish presence, providing logistical assistance, connections, etc. I think D'Elia is a good example it can go to extremes, but I believe the boss treatment he received while being boss of nothing is more tied to his personality than to the rules. Don't get me wrong, I don't think he'll be disrespected either way, but his energy had a lot to do why people sought his advice.

On the other hand you have the more outside look at what makes a crime family "viable. If the FBI analyzes the situation and concludes in relatively short term, based on collected intelligence, a crime organization can't prosper and eventually will suffocate itself to death, I think that's a good reason to put the defunct label and get it over with, while the remains scatter or get put down in the following decade or so. Their ability to operate on their own terms has already been destroyed.

Also, it can be argued for most of the smaller families there was no incentive to rebuild after being knocked down by LE. A lot of these made guys and associates did a lot better after a family was dissolved than before, because they didn't have to kick up the chain of command on regular basis.

Scranton was a very early Family since the 1870's and has been affiliated with NY from the onset, it was well placed to be diplomatic and this role predated D'Elia, the Apalachin meeting occurring there is one example. I'm sure his personality didn't hurt things, but there's more to it than that.

As far as getting it over with, if you were looking expand into gambling in Cleveland would you enter that city and tell Joe Loose to his face that he's not viable? What if you're mobbed up with the Genoveses who are contacted by Loose and you're told to lay off or if you pursue this you'll do so independently, are you going to argue to your skipper that CL isn't viable? I'm seeing it from an organization/political perspective and let me explain why. The Beati Paoli of Palermo are a fable which never existed, that point doesn't stop Mafiosi to this day from believing in their existence and their own descendance from them which is they they've been caught having meetings on via Beati Paoli in centro. Or the DeCavalcante's believing they were the First USA Family. What these guys believe/consider legitimate is going to influence how they operate much more so than me telling them their fables are bullshit or the FBI declaring who's active or not.

To hone in on another example: Capodecina. The very definition is that of a member that controls a crew, the translation literally means "head of ten." And yet over the course of 100 years we've seen members holding that rank without made members under them, without even a formal crew, and in even some select cases we've seen joint-capos over one crew. Are they Capos or are they capos? If the Lucchese Newark crew were to muscle in on Anthony Staino in SJ and argue during the sitdown to Philly/Luc reps that Staino has no soldiers under him so therefore isn't really a "head of ten?" Would such an argument be acceptable within the scope of Mafia politics and their mediation process? No, Staino is a capo, his personality or amount of guys, or ability to earn doesn't change the fact that he's a capo. And for a member to question his status would be an insult in mob culture that could warrant repercussions. Bare in mind Scarfo jr's demotion from his position partly was due to his tension with Philly. But from our perspective the Luccheses are all powerful and Philly is what we consider a "glorified crew" thanks to mob tv. It does not matter to them what we think.

[eboli]

Yeah, Scranton are certainly a special case, but I doubt even in this position, if the boss was some 80 year-old Joe Shmuck, he will receive the same amount of respect and clout, history or no history. Although he probably won't be made boss in the first place. I'm certain an FBI status report will not have the same effect on a crime family's modus operandi as multiple generations of rules and tradition, but it also does not mean the FBI is wrong in their conclusion that Joe Loose might be viable in the Cosa Nostra world, but it isn't so much in the eyes of the government, compared to other criminal organizations. Sure, he can chase other made guys from his turf if he wants to, but can he fend off any gangster disciples? You know what I mean? I think both viewpoints on the matter can co-exist without inherently contradict each other.

[Angelo Santino]

Yeah, Scranton are certainly a special case, but I doubt even in this position, if the boss was some 80 year-old Joe Shmuck, he will receive the same amount of respect and clout, history or no history. Although he probably won't be made boss in the first place. I'm certain an FBI status report will not have the same effect on a crime family's modus operandi as multiple generations of rules and tradition, but it also does not mean the FBI is wrong in their conclusion that Joe Loose might be viable in the Cosa Nostra world, but it isn't so much in the eyes of the government, compared to other criminal organizations. Sure, he can chase other made guys from his turf if he wants to, but can he fend off any gangster disciples? You know what I mean? I think both viewpoints on the matter can co-exist without inherently contradict each other.

I get what you're saying. And if you zoom the lens in so that the focus is on NYC, the groups outside of NYC are largely irrelevant and obsolete. But if you take that same microscope and zoom out even farther, you'll see that even the NYC LCN is largely irrelevant. They are not among the top ten criminal organizations in the world, so why not label them defunct since, unless barring some significant immigration patterns, are on a slow decline.

I'm viewing it from a different lenses and there's no single lens fits all.

[AntComello]

Buffalo is active and majority of their activity is in Canada that is why there has been a lack of indictments. Tadaro is a very elusive boss who goes to great length to stay under the radar. There are so many things going on that us and LE have NO IDEA about. You heard it hear first from Comello aka the Qanon queer.